The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-10-04
WHAT LAWYERS SAY.
Brief Interviews with Prominent
Members OF the Memphis Bar.
The Ge"eraI Opiptsn IL that the
Prohibition Amendment
HAS Rsiied.

AS there seems to prevsil en- opiE-
ion in the minds OF some that ma
jority vote on the prohibitory amend
ment cast at last Thursday's election
does not settle the question, in view
Of the fact that there was cast for the
amendment more than majority Of
the votes polled at the last general |
election, the APPEAL yesterday dc.
tailed one Of Its reporters to collect |
the opinions Of some Of the leading |
attorneys on the question as to
whether the amendment was lost or
not.
One OF the first seen was Col, julie
Taylor, who said: Certainly, think
that the amendment Is defeated.
The claim OF the prohibitionists Ia not
tenable from any standpoint. The
idea that the will OF the msj ority Is to
be defeated Is not to be entertained.
II 10 against the crudest idea OF re-
publican form OF government and the
dictates OF good sense. II was well
enough for the Legislature to estab.
lish precedent by which the vote on
the amendment, 1t being OF grave i'm.
portance, was to be Judged, but the
idea Of their ever having the least In.
tention to gusge the msj ority vote OF
a succeeding election by the people Is
absurd"
Judge B. M. Estes: 1.-THE considera.
ton OF the amendment involves con.
stitutionsl question. have not exam
ined 1t with any view Of giving q
mature opinion, and therefore would
not like 10 speak deliberately upon II,
but II does seem to me that the ma.
jority against the amendment will
hold good, and that the claims OF the
friends CT the amendment to the con-
trary are worthless"
Judge J. M, Gregory: IT have no
doubt In my mind that the amend
ment is irretrievably lost, 90 far as last
Thursdays election Is concerned. It
Is lost because there is q maj ority
against II. The claims Of the pro.
hibitionists In the face Of that ma.
jority are contrary to the just rule Of Q
republican form OF government. The
Legislature never for one moment
meant to stiAe the voice Of the msjority
OF the citizens Of this State. It's pre-
scribipg q certain number could In no
way affect an excess Of that number.
Another reason why i think that, even
II the amendment bad carried, II would
have been imperative, is that the cleo
ton ives held on Q day not warranted
by the constitution"
The Hon. Henry GRAFT: 81 have
nothing TO say. The editorial In the
APPEAL OF today he states precisely my
own opinion. The APrsAL having al.
ready covered the point 90 clearly,
there 10 no use OF my celebrating on
II. ! will say, though, that / think the
claim OF the prohibilionists in behalf
OF the amendment Ia simply prepos.
ferrous, for the Legislature never meant
for any such construction to be put on
the law, In the face OF q ms ority
against II, when the vote exceeded
that "a prescribed by them"
Col. Thoe. w. Harris: 81 have not
given the question q single thought,
and never express an opinion about
something i have not carefully con.
sidersd."
Mr.. W. A. Collier: "while I mos,
heartily desired the success OF the
amendment, do not think that II wa
ever contemplated that q minority
should control the majority, especially
90 In making an amendment TO the
constitution OF the State. However
anxious / am 10 see such
an amendment bee, me q law, I would
he unwilling TO see II engrafted on the
constitution by a technicality. The
amendment has failed because II did
not receive msj ority OF the votes cas-
on Thursday last. The point that hal
been raised by the friends OF tn,
measure as TO Its having received al
excess OF the votes as prescribed b.
the General Assembly is not tenabl,
In the face Of q majority over and
above that vote"
Judge Greer: 81 always feel fla,tere,
when asked for my opinion, but II
this instance / must decline to respont
to the kind compliment OF the Ar
PEAL"
James II. Watson: "My opinion
has been asked on this question sew
eral times In the past few days, and
while / have not had time 10 give |
that careful thought which 4 measuy
OF such importance deserves, l am o
the opinion that the election OF itsel
was invalid, for the reason that It wa
held on q day not warranted by th,
constitution. The vote should hav
been had on the day nIed for the cleo
ton Of members oil the General Az
sembly. That 10 my first view; but
Il be granted that the election 10 valid
then 10 avalls the friends OF the amend
ment nothing. for Legislatures vii
. not assume TO dictate 10 ma oritie
over which Il has no control. But, Q
far a. establishing the total vote Q
the last election as precedent, Y
order 10 arrive at the sense oil tn
popular sentiment, that was proper
. but TO undertake 10 say that II 100. 90
more people voted at this electio
than did at ths last their franchise
amount 10 nothing, because II 10 In th
negative OF the proposition vote
upon, Ia very unsound logic and poors
law"
Mr.. W. d. Beard: "The amendmen
10 Loaf, beyond all shadow Of doub'
, The position assumed by the prohib
tionists Ia untenable, and no cour
would entertain such proposition Q
they claim.
Mr.. d. II. .Postoni ~ think III
, provision OF the constitution as
I. voting on amendments 10 II IL palpi
|. bly, detective, and would like TO se
u rigidly construed by q competer
court. While this 10 true, i do nc
think that that court would question
the settlement OF the amendment
declared by the recent election. Th
amendment, according to my way
7 thinking, 10 lost"
NJ B. frtssvant; ~ cannot safel
answer the question, Tor II 10 const
: tutionsi one that Ibhys not Atudied
\ | 49,. H.. 40 aonaihaT Ma Won WI